I’m president of the Galen Institute, a non-profit research organization that focuses on market-driven health policy, and a co-author of Why ObamaCare Is Wrong for America (Broadside/HarperCollins, 2011)

ObamaCare: If Possible, The News Is Getting Worse

ObamaCare is taking on water as we head into the second anniversary since it passed, and the news about the president’s signature legislation gets worse by the day.

To mark the law’s two-year anniversary, the House of Representatives is planning a vote to repeal one of the law’s most unpopular provisions — the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which many seniors fear will become Medicare’s rationing board.

A few days later, the Supreme Court will hear a remarkable six hours of oral argument in the case with 26 states challenging the law’s constitutionality. Demonstrators will fill the streets outside the Supreme Court during the three days of hearings March 26-28.

For much of the last year, the White House had adopted a “strategy of silence” on ObamaCare. That’s clearly over.

After the 2010 election drubbing, the president rarely talked about his signature legislative achievement and even when he did, he only spoke about the small early provisions — 26-year-old children on their parents’ insurance, “free” preventive care, and more help for seniors with their drug costs.

For a while, the strategy was working. ObamaCare has died down as a major issue. The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to repeal the law a year ago, and, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll, about half of those polled afterward thought the law has been repealed or weren’t sure. The confusion — and the lack of their basic knowledge of civics — suited the White House just fine.

But ObamaCare is back to center stage this month, and the more people learn about the law, the more unpopular it becomes. Here are just some of the recent revelations:

· Soaring costs. ObamaCare will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

The new 10-year projections cover nine years of ObamaCare’s implementation (2013-2022). Original estimates counted only six years of implementation — a budget gimmick to obscure the true cost of the law. At this rate, the conservative estimates of ObamaCare’s cost will be $2 trillion over 10 years, not the $1 trillion that President Obama promised.

· Lost coverage. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) released a statement saying that the CBO’s estimate also shows that the new health law will dramatically increase Medicaid spending and result in 4 million fewer people getting health insurance through their jobs. So much for being able to keep the coverage you have now “no matter what,” as the president promised.

· Opposition locked in. An AP-GfK poll taken early this month shows that only about a third of Americans (35 percent) support the health care law, while nearly half (47 percent) oppose it. That’s about the same split as when it passed.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

It is mind-boggling that such an important piece of legislation was passed without much debate and, more importantly, without one Congressional hearing about what was broke with the fantastic medical care delivery system the USA has (had?), and what is needed to fix those broken parts. Granted, it wasn’t perfect, but it dang sure didn’t need to be eviscerated and turned over to bunch of people who, if history is any teacher, will behave like they took their public service lessons at DMV or TSA. Do any of the older readers remember the Snail Darter? There were weeks and weeks of hearings over a small fish. Wouldn’t one suppose that our health care delivery system should rate at least the same amount of study?

Anyone who has a policy on exchanges run by the federal government will NOT be eligible to receive tax credits or subsidies. This was an omission caused by the incompetent haste of passing a bill without reading it and assuming Martha Coakley would be elected to send the bill for corrections in conference.

Those mistakes are now blowing up in the Democrat’s faces. Tax credits and subsidies are only available by state run exchanges, not those run by the federal government. The Democrats are desperately scrambling to correct this through IRS regulations, similar to what they’ve tried with Cap and Trade via the EPA. However, that will not work since such changes need to be initiated through the House of Representatives. The IRS does not have the power to implement these allowances unilaterally. No executive order will do the job either.

There are currently 28 states suing the government over the law, so it’s unlikely they will make any effort to set up exchanges. Only 13 states have enacted any legislation at all, and most are only to perform studies. Does any sensible person believe the federal government has the capability to run these exchanges? What good will they be if more than half the states will be not be participating? What will that do to the already ballooning costs?

The real irony here is the fact we ALREADY have private exchanges like ehealthinsurance.com. It’s an excellent exchange to shop for insurance plans. Yes, it’s more costly since you don’t receive a tax break as you would through your employer, but it’s worth it since it’s YOUR policy regardless of your job status. Allowing insurance purchase across state lines and shifting the tax break from businesses to individuals would allow people an abundance of plans to choose from.

You don’t want to buy a policy that covers $9 a month birth control pills, sterilization, drug addiction, smoking cessation, pregnancy, psychiatry, etc.? Obamacare requires you buy all of that coverage whether you like it or not. It reinforces job lock, expands redistribution of wealth and causes premiums to skyrocket. Taxes on medical devices, over the counter drugs, prescription drugs, hospitals and the insurance companies themselves will increase health care costs and premiums.

Just when you thought that wasn’t juicy enough, since the employer mandate is tied into the exchanges, businesses will sue in states that don’t run their own exchanges. Why should they pay a fine for employees not covered by them who won’t even be eligible for tax credits or subsidies? That defeats the purpose of the employer mandate, so look for that to go down as well if the law continues to proceed on its self-destructive path.

The freedom to buy the policies that are right for us and our families without arrogant elitists in DC deciding for us will empower the people like never before. That would be REAL reform the country would embrace.

Thanks for clearly stating the consequences of Obamacare, bufordtjustice. If things happen as you state, this Obamination is dead in the water, as it should be. November 2010 was step 1 to cleaning up this mess. November 2012 will be step 2 to finishing the job. This colossal legislative nightmare must not stand.

“Allowing insurance purchase across state lines and shifting the tax break from businesses to individuals would allow people an abundance of plans to choose from.”

Yes! Why should anyone’s health care coverage be subject to the whims of their employers? Sure, we shouldn’t make religious groups support things they don’t approve of, but doesn’t that also impinge upon the freedom of the employee by forcing them to adopt those religious beliefs?

Health insurance should be done on an individual basis, with one giant risk pool. Think about it – reductions in red tape and bureaucracy, plus competition among the providers would help to lower costs. Allowing individuals to have the deductions currently used by businesses would make it more affordable, and companies could focus on running their businesses, not on managing their employees’ health.

I do think everyone should have to buy a very basic catastrophic coverage policy, but that could come with a super-cheap cost and be subsidized for the truly poor. That way, individuals would be less likely to go broke from unexpected health issues and the risk could be more evenly spread to help cover those who require more comprehensive coverage.

Get health care out of businesses and we might just be able to lower costs.

You were doing fine until this sentence. Nobody should have to buy anything for being alive in this country. In America, it’s repulsive and unacceptable to be mandated to buy something and re-purchase it every month for life because the arrogant elitists in DC think they know better than the rest of us. It’s unconstitutional and will be struck down by the Supreme Court.

You should not believe the hype about mandates solving a free rider problem. Obamacare expands Medicaid by 16 million people, many of whom pay for regular insurance now but will switch over to Medicaid since they won’t have to pay for it. Millions more will get tax credits and subsidies to pay for most or almost all of their insurance adding more freeloaders. This will result in about 25 million NEW freeloaders in addition to the freeloaders we have now.

Those who don’t want insurance and refuse to buy it now still won’t buy it even with the mandate. Why should they? The fine is cheaper. Then again, why pay the fine either? All the government can do is confiscate a tax refund. Big deal. Already, 49.5% of the country does not pay any federal income tax. Out of the other half who do, how many are owed a refund? Of that number, how may owe a refund that’s the same or more than the amount of the fine? What are you left with? Nothing of any appreciable amount. The ultimate irony is even if they pay a fine, they won’t be participating in the insurance pool to spread the cost which totally defeats the purpose of Obamacare.